Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:11:05 07/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2002 at 16:05:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 01, 2002 at 12:44:02, Mike S. wrote: > >>On July 01, 2002 at 01:54:03, Telmo Escobar wrote: >> >>>On June 30, 2002 at 04:22:06, Mike S. wrote: >>>(...) >>>>[D]r1b1k2b/pp1p3p/2p5/3Nqp2/2B4Q/8/PP1P1PPP/n1BK3R w q - 0 16 >>>>16.Nc7+!! A typical computer move. >> >>> Alas, how can you call this a computer move? 16.Nc7+ is the first move I think >>>about! >>> This example makes me suspect the very idea of "computer move" is based upon a >>>misunderstanding. >> >>Normally, a chessplayer won't think first about a move which looks like a >>blunder (Qe5xNx7), at least for a few milliseconds. The knight goes to a guarded >>square and is "simply" lost (not so simply, as it turns out a few 100.000 >>calculated positions later). It's not at all the "normal" Nc7+ fork. >> >>It's a *19 ply* combination. So if you saw it immediatly that Nc7+ is playable: >>Congratulations ;o) I guess the next you saw was ...QxNc7 which should have >>raised some doubt, at least for the following minutes. >> >>Such a move will be a riciculous blunder in 99.999 of 100.000 cases, that's why >>I call it surprising, and computer-typical because programs find it very fast. >> >>Regards, >>M.Scheidl > >I believe that most humans will play Re1 that is also enough to win the game. > >Uri Yes, but Nc7+ is a mate in 10, which is totally devastating. Re1 Qxe1 is probably winning, but not nearly as quickly. This is the sort of thing where a computer finds a very non-obvious move easily while a human finds the obvious move that is fairly safe in terms of winning, but not _the_ quickest way. I think this is becoming more and more common...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.